A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Consumer Views on Technical Report

NREL/TP-620-36785 Transportation and Energy April 2005 

(Second Edition)

M. Kubik 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
Consumer Views on Technical Report

NREL/TP-620-36785 Transportation and Energy April 2005 

(Second Edition) 

M. Kubik 

Prepared under Task No(s). ASA5.1315 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
NOTICE 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge 

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov 

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov 

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm 

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... iv 

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

2. ENERGY, OIL, AND POLICY............................................................................................. 2 

3. ALTERNATIVE FUELS....................................................................................................... 6 

4. CONVENTIONAL, MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT, AND ADVANCED-TECHNOLOGY 

VEHICLES .......................................................................................................................... 11 

5. TRAFFIC ISSUES............................................................................................................... 20 

iii 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

2.1.1 Public Perception of U.S. Vulnerability to Energy Crisis (1998)...........................................2 

2.1.2 Seriousness of Energy Situation (selected years, 1977-2004) ................................................2 

2.2.1 Gas Price Increase – Effect on Lifestyle (June 2004).............................................................3 

2.2.2 Gas Price Increase – Perceived Cause (May 2004) ................................................................3 

2.2.3 Gas Price Increase – Effect on Finances (selected years, 2000-2004) ...................................4 

2.3.1 Energy Production Priorities (2001-04)..................................................................................4

2.3.2 Energy Production Priorities (2001-04)..................................................................................5

2.3.3 Environmental Proposals (March 2003) .................................................................................5 

3.1.1 Factors Considered “Extremely Important” or “Very Important” in Influencing Decisions 

to Try a New Fuel Technology (2003) ...................................................................................6 

3.1.2 Public Perception of Best Fuel and Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) ................................................................6 

3.1.3 Reasons Electricity Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline 

Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) ...............................................................................7 

3.1.4 Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline Is 

No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) ...................................................................................8 

3.1.5 Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline 

Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) ...............................................................................8 

3.1.6 Reasons Electricity Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) ................................................................9 

3.1.7 Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline 

Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) ...............................................................................9 

3.1.8 Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline 

Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) .............................................................................10 

4.1.1 Trends in Vehicle-Attribute Preference (selected years, 1980-2004)...................................11 

4.1.2 Issue Is a Major Reason for Those NOT Considering the Purchase of an SUV (2003).......11 

4.2.1 Number of Years Public is Willing to Accept for Payback of Higher Fuel-Economy 

Vehicle (2002) ......................................................................................................................12 

4.2.2 Additional Amount the Public is Willing to Pay for a Vehicle with a 10 Percent Increase 

in Fuel Economy (2001) .......................................................................................................12

4.2.3 Public Preference Toward Purchasing a More Fuel-Efficient Engine with Different FuelAvailability Options (2000) .................................................................................................13

4.3.1 Amount of Information Heard Pertaining to Advanced Hybrid-Electric Power Trains 

(2000-02)...............................................................................................................................14 

4.3.2 Names of Advanced Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Known by the Public (selected years, 

2000-04)................................................................................................................................14 

4.3.3 Public’s Attitudes Toward Hybrid-Electric SUVs (2003) ....................................................15 

4.3.4.1 Public’s Willingness to Consider the Purchase of a Diesel Engine With a 40 Percent 

Increase in Fuel Economy and Additional Costs of $1,500 (1997)......................................16 

4.3.4.2 Public’s Willingness to Pay a Premium for a Clean Diesel Engine (2002)..........................16 

4.3.5 Purchase Preference Between Diesel and Gasoline Vehicles by Vehicle Type (2001) .......17 

4.3.6 Reasons for Choosing a Diesel Option (2001) .....................................................................17 

iv 
Table Page 

4.3.7 Reasons for Rejecting a Diesel Option (2001) .....................................................................18 

4.3.8 Vehicle-Purchase Preferences (2004) ...................................................................................18 

4.3.9 Vehicle-Purchase Preferences – Diesel vs. Hybrid-electric (2004)......................................19 

4.3.10 Priority on Vehicle Attributes (2004) ...................................................................................19 

5.1 Public Ranking of the Most Irritating Part of Driving (2002) ..............................................20 

5.2 Most Important Reasons for Travel Delays (2000) ..............................................................20 

5.3 Public’s View of Daily Traffic (2000)..................................................................................20 

5.4 Public’s View of Future Traffic (2000) ................................................................................21 

5.5.1 Have Changed Schedule Because of Traffic (2000).............................................................21 

5.5.2 Ways Public has Changed Because of Traffic (2000) ..........................................................21 

5.6 Frequency of Getting Stuck in Traffic Jams (2000) .............................................................22 

5.7 Reasons for Using Public Transit (2003)..............................................................................22 

v 
1. INTRODUCTION 

This report was written to provide the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE) with an idea of how the American public views various transportation, energy, and 

environmental issues. 

The data presented in this report have been drawn from multiple sources: surveys conducted by 

the Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) that are commissioned and funded by EERE, Gallup polls, news organization polls, 

surveys conducted by independent groups, and other sources. Most of the surveys are telephone 

interviews conducted with randomly selected national samples of adults 18 and older (some were 

done via the Internet). The surveys use national samples, and the sample size is noted, wherever 

it is available. The surveys were selected based on their relevance to this overall topic. 

The Consumer Views on Transportation and Energy report consists of five sections, including 

the introduction (Section 1). Section 2 examines public concern about U.S. dependence on 

imported oil and public assessment of the energy situation in the United States. Section 2 also 

examines public beliefs about actions to address energy problems, as well as actual and 

perceived effects of gasoline prices on individuals and households. 

Section 3 analyzes what Americans think about alternative fuels such as electricity, ethanol, 

hydrogen, and other fuel types. Section 4 focuses on conventional and advanced-technology 

vehicles. In this report, advanced-technology vehicles include hybrid-electric and diesel vehicles. 

Section 4 also analyzes owners’ decisions about purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles and 

advanced-technology vehicles. Section 5 looks at the public’s perception of on-road travel and 

traffic congestion. 

In this edition of Consumer Views on Transportation and Energy, ORC and Gallup poll results 

for 2002, 2003, and 2004 have been included. ORC surveys were conducted in March 2002, 

November 2002, March 2003, and twice in 2004 (May and August). The new Gallup polls were 

conducted throughout 2004. ORC and Gallup asked some of the same energy and environment 

questions during the past several years. The latest results have been added to the prior ones to 

show the most current opinions and trends during the past several years. 

The report also features new questions from both ORC and Gallup. These 2004 surveys 

examined “hot” topics such as gas-price increases, environmental issues, and vehicle-purchase 

preferences. 

1
2. ENERGY, OIL, AND POLICY 

Public opinion polls reveal that the U.S. public perceives the country’s energy situation as a 

serious issue (Table 2.1.2). This section examines the public’s assessment of the energy 

situation, actual and perceived effects of gasoline prices on driving, and public beliefs about 

actions to address energy problems. 

2.1 PUBLIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ENERGY SITUATION 

Q2.1.1: The United States imports about half of its oil from foreign sources – more than it did 

25 years ago. Based on this fact, how vulnerable do you believe the United States is 

to an energy crisis that would be caused by foreign nations shutting off their supply of 

oil to the United States: very, somewhat, not too, not at all? 

Table 2.1.1. Public Perception of U.S. Vulnerability to Energy Crisis (1998) 

Categories of Responses Percent 

Very vulnerable 47 

Somewhat vulnerable 36 

Not too vulnerable 12 

Not at all vulnerable 3.5 

Don’t know/refused 1.5 

Total 100 

Source: Research/Strategy/Management Inc. (1998), N=1,003 

Q2.1.2 How serious would you say the energy situation is in the United States – very serious, 

fairly serious, or not at all serious? 

Table 2.1.2. Seriousness of Energy Situation (selected years, 1977-2004) 

Date Very serious 

(%) 

Fairly 

serious (%) 

Not at all 

serious (%) 

No opinion 

March 2004 29 57 12 2 

March 2003 28 59 11 2 

March 2002 22 63 12 3 

March 2001 31 59 9 1 

Feb. 1991 40 44 14 2 

Aug. 1990 28 45 23 4 

April 1979 44 36 16 4 

March 1978 41 39 15 5 

April 1977 44 40 11 5 

Source: Gallup (selected years, 1977-2004), N=496 

2 
2.2 ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF GASOLINE PRICES ON DRIVING 

Among those who responded to questions related to this section, it was clear that increases in gas 

prices affects driving habits and lifestyle traits. This is consistent with data showing that when 

gasoline prices are lower, people tend to use their vehicles more; and conversely, when gasoline 

prices increase, driving declines (Table 2.2.1). 

Q2.2.1: As a result of the recent rise in gas prices, would you say you have – or have not – 

done each of the following? 

Table 2.2.1. Gas Price Increase – Effect on Lifestyle (June 2004) 

Lifestyle trait Yes, have 

(%) 

No, have not 

(%) 

No opinion 

(%) 

Made more of an effort to find the gas station 

with the cheapest gas in your area 69 30 1 

Seriously considered getting a more fuelefficient car the next time you buy a vehicle 53 46 1 

Cut back significantly on how much you drive 45 54 1 

Cut back significantly on your household 

spending because of the higher gas prices 34 66 * 

Altered your summer vacation plans 29 70 1 

Source: Gallup (June 3-6, 2004), N=465 

Q2.2.2: Just your opinion, why would you say the price of gasoline has been increasing so 

much in recent months? (open-ended question) 

Table 2.2.2. Gas Price Increase – Perceived Cause (May 2004) 

Price factor Percent 

Big business/oil companies/price gouging/refineries want more profit 22 

The war in Iraq 19 

OPEC/Saudi Arabia manipulating supply 9 

Supply and demand 8 

Government/politics 7 

President Bush 5 

Lack of U.S. refining capability/lack of supply/drilling 4 

Gas shortage/lack of production 4 

Unrest in the Middle East 4 

Economy/inflation 2 

Summer vacation time/prices always go up around this time 2 

Foreign policy 1 

Other 6 

No opinion 15 

Source: Gallup (May 21-23, 2004), N=496 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

3 
Q2.2.3: Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your 

household? 

Table 2.2.3. Gas Price Increase – Effect on Finances (selected years, 2000-2004) 

Timeframe Yes, caused 

hardship 

(%) 

No, has not 

caused 

hardship 

(%) 

No opinion 

(%) 

May 21-23, 2004 47 52 1 

Feb. 17-19, 2003 35 65 * 

May 7-9, 2001 47 53 * 

May 23-24, 2000 36 64 * 

Source: Gallup (selected years, 2000-04), N=465 

2.3 PUBLIC BELIEFS ABOUT ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENERGY PROBLEMS 

Q2.3.1: Which of the following approaches to solving the nation’s energy problems do you 

think the United States should follow right now: 

Emphasize production of more oil, gas, and coal supplies OR 

Emphasize more conservation by consumers of existing energy supplies. 

Table 2.3.1. Energy Production Priorities (2001-04) 

Date More 

production 

More 

conservation 

Both/equally 

(vol.) 

Neither/other 

(vol.) 

No 

opinion 

March 2004 31 59 6 2 2 

March 2003 29 60 7 2 2 

March 2002 30 60 6 2 2 

March 2001 33 56 8 1 2 

Source: Gallup (2001-04), N=496 

4 
Q2.3.2: With which one of these statements about the environment and energy production do 

you most agree: 

Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting 

the amount of energy supplies (such as oil, gas, and coal), which the United States 

produces OR 

Development of U.S. energy supplies (such as oil, gas and coal) should be given 

priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. 

Table 2.3.2. Energy Production Priorities (2001-04) 

Date Environment Development 

of energy 

supplies 

Both/equally 

(vol.) 

Neither/other 

(vol.) 

No 

opinion 

March 2004 48 44 3 1 4 

March 2003 49 40 5 2 4 

March 2002 52 40 3 2 3 

March 2001 52 36 6 2 4 

Source: Gallup (2001-04), N=496 

Q2.3.3: I am going to read some specific environmental proposals. For each one, please say 

whether you generally favor or oppose it. 

Table 2.3.3. Environmental Proposals (March 2003) 

Proposal Favor (%) Oppose 

(%) 

No opinion 

Setting higher emissions and pollution 

standards for business and industry 80 19 1 

Imposing mandatory controls on carbon 

dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases 75 22 3 

More strongly enforcing federal environmental 

regulations 75 21 4 

Setting higher auto emissions standards for 

automobiles 73 24 * 

Expanding the use of nuclear energy 43 51 6 

Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration 41 55 4 

Source: Gallup (March 2003), N=526 

5 
3. ALTERNATIVE FUELS 

A number of surveys researched the U.S. adult population knowledge and opinions about 

alternative types of fuel such as electricity, ethanol, and hydrogen. Poll questions asked between 

2000 and 2004 focused on knowledge and opinions about alternative fuels. Several of these 

survey questions demonstrate that opinions regarding safety and environmental attributes of 

these fuel sources have changed from 2000 to 2004. 

Table 3.1.1. Factors Considered “Extremely Important” or “Very Important” in Influencing 

Decisions to Try a New Fuel Technology (2003) 

Factor Percent 

How safe the fuel is for drivers and passengers 83 

The cost of the fuel 78 

How far you can drive before refueling 75 

The cost of the vehicle 72 

The convenience of refueling 67 

Environmental emissions 67 

Whether the fuel source is domestic instead of foreign 47 

How the new fuel system affects passenger and cargo space 47 

Whether or not the fuel can be recycled 45 

Source: Harris poll for Millennium Cell and U.S. Borax Inc. (2003), N=1,006. 

Q3.1.2: Consider a future date when gasoline is no longer available. Which of the following 

do you think would be the best fuel for use in personal vehicles: electricity, ethanol, 

or hydrogen? 

Table 3.1.2. Public Perception of Best Fuel and Worst Fuel for Use in Personal 

Vehicles When Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Fuel for Use in 

Personal Vehicles 

Best Fuel 

(percent) 

Worst Fuel 

(percent) 

2000 2004 2000 2004 

Electricity 52 41 15 21 

Hydrogen 15 28 27 23 

Ethanol 21 19 28 28 

Don’t know 12 13 30 29 

Total 100 100 100 100 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=1,000; and ORC for NREL (2004b), 

Study No. 713359, N=1,000. 

6 
Q3.1.3: Why did you say electricity would be the best fuel for use in personal vehicles 

when gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.3. Reasons Electricity Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Reasons 

Percent 

2000 2004 

Environmental concerns (cleaner, less pollution, cleaner air, other 

environmental mentions) 29 23 

Availability (abundant, common, renewable/inexhaustable, easy 

to produce/manufacture, not dependent on foreign oil) 22 23 

Existing/developing technology (electric cars already being 

developed, technology already being used, many things powered 

by electricity) 17 13 

Economical/affordable 11 7 

Methods of generating (can be solar generated/powered, other 

related mentions) 7 3 

Most familiar with it/not familiar with others 7 8 

Safe 5 4 

Best source 4 2 

More efficient 3 2 

Easier/convenient (unspecified) 3 3 

Others not practical /performance concerns 3 1 

Other 5 9 

Don’t know 6 15 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=522; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No.

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

7
Q3.1.4: Why did you say ethanol would be the best fuel for use in personal vehicles when 

gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.4. Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Reasons 

Percent 

2000 2004 

Readily available (common, abundant, renewable/inexhaustible, easy 

to produce/manufacture, can generate our own fuel, other mentions) 27 28 

Methods of generating (made from corn/grain, other related mentions) 18 9 

Economical/affordable 15 12 

Environmental concerns (cleaner, less pollution, other related 

mentions) 15 15 

Others not practical/performance concerns 10 6 

Better for/helps farmers/ farming industry 8 14 

Existing/developing technology 8 9 

Best source (unspecified) 5 11 

More similar to gasoline 5 6 

Other 12 5 

Don’t know 7 12 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=206; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No.

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

Q3.1.5: Why did you say hydrogen would be the best fuel for use in personal vehicles when 

gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.5. Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Reasons 

Percent 

2000 2004 

Availability (common, abundant, easy to produce/manufacture, 

renewable/inexhaustible, other related mentions) 37 36 

Environmental concerns (cleaner, less pollution, other related mentions) 27 24 

Economical/affordable 12 16 

Others not practical/ performance concerns 11 6 

Existing/developing technology (net) 7 6 

More efficient 5 1 

Safety concerns 5 1 

Best source (unspecified) 3 2 

Other 9 9 

Don’t know 9 8 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=151; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No.

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

8 
Q3.1.6: Why did you say electricity would be the worst fuel for use in personal vehicles when 

gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.6. Reasons Electricity Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Reasons Percent 

2000 2004 

Too expensive 28 23 

Electric vehicles can’t hold charge for long/can’t travel long distances 20 9 

Environmental concerns (must burn coal/fossil fuels, pollution, other 

related mentions) 19 23 

Not enough electricity now 12 6 

Safety concerns 5 2 

Other 15 9 

Don’t know 10 13 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=150; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No.

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

Q3.1.7: Why did you say ethanol would be the worst fuel for use in personal vehicles when 

gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.7. Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Reasons 

Percent 

2000 2004 

Environmental concerns (pollution, creates environmental 

problems, other related mentions) 38 30 

Safety concerns (flammable/combustible, explosive, contains 

chemicals, other related mentions) 20 12 

Too expensive 6 4 

Lack of availability 4 4 

Finite/exhaustible resource 3 2 

Difficult to produce 3 3 

Causes engine trouble 3 1 

Other 13 7 

Don’t know 20 19 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=281; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No.

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

9 
Q3.1.8: Why did you say hydrogen would be the worst fuel for use in personal vehicles 

when gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.8. Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Reasons 

Percent 

2000 2004 

Safety concerns (explosive, flammable/combustible, unstable, think of 

bombs, other related mentions) 50 40 

Pollution and environmental concerns 8 5 

Not enough is known about it 4 * 

Difficult to produce 4 4 

Too expensive 3 1 

Other 15 9 

Don’t know 21 23 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=274; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No. 

713359, N=1,000. 

10
4. CONVENTIONAL, MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT, AND ADVANCEDTECHNOLOGY VEHICLES 

Section 4 focuses on vehicle owners and the decisions they make about their vehicles. It consists 

of three sections that encompass survey data on owners’ decisions about their conventional (i.e., 

gasoline) vehicles, as well as more fuel-efficient and advanced-technology vehicles. 

4.1 VEHICLE OWNERS’ DECISIONS ON CONVENTIONAL VEHICLES 

Q4.1.1: Which of the following attributes would be MOST important to you in your choice of 

your next vehicle? (closed-ended) 

Table 4.1.1. Trends in Vehicle-Attribute Preference (selected years, 1980-2004) 

J.D. Power (percent) ORC (percent) 

Attributes 1980 1981 1983 1985 1987 1996 1998 2000 2001 2004 

Fuel economy 42 20 13 8 4 7 4 10 10 22 

Dependability 31 40 38 41 44 34 36 32 29 26 

Low price 14 21 30 29 31 11 5 11 8 10 

Quality 4 7 11 12 8 19 20 21 22 19 

Safety 9 12 9 10 14 29 34 24 29 23 

Don’t know/ 

none of these 1 2 1 

Total 100 100 100 100 101 100 100 100 99 100 

Sources: For 1980s: J. D. Power (data based on new-car buyers). For 1996: ORC for 

NREL. For 1998: ORC for NREL (1998a), N = 1,000. For 2000: ORC for NREL (2000a), 

N = 941. For 2001: ORC for NREL (2001c), N = 989. For 2001: ORC for NREL (2004a), 

N = 949. 

In-market car buyers were asked about their views toward sport utility vehicles (SUVs). 

Table 4.1.2. Issue Is a Major Reason for Those NOT Considering the Purchase 

 of an SUV (2003) 

Issue January 

2003 

March 

2003 

Price of gas * 50 

Not the kind of vehicle I want 51 45 

Rollover/safety concerns 30 34 

Impact on foreign oil dependence 28 31 

Impact on environment 25 26 

Too big for the road 23 23 

Source: Kelley Blue Book (2003), N=524 

* Question not asked in first wave 

11 
4.2 VEHICLE OWNERS’ DECISIONS ABOUT MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES 

Q4.2.1: Suppose that the next vehicle you’ve decided to buy offers an option of better fuel 

economy, but at a higher price. The savings in fuel costs would pay back the higher 

price over time. How soon, in years, would the fuel savings have to pay back the 

additional cost to persuade you to buy the higher fuel-economy option? 

Table 4.2.1. Number of Years Public is Willing to Accept for Payback of 

Higher Fuel-Economy Vehicle (2002) 

Years Percent 

1 18 

2 23 

3 13 

4 3 

5 12 

6 -

More than 6 3 

Don’t Know 27 

Total 100 

Mean 2.9

 Source: ORC for NREL (2002b), N=1,000 

Q4.2.2: How much more would you be willing to pay for the vehicle that gets 10% better fuel 

economy than for the vehicle you currently drive? 

Table 4.2.2. Additional Amount the Public is Willing to Pay for a Vehicle 

with a 10 Percent Increase in Fuel Economy (2001) 

Dollar Amount Percent 

Less than $500 7 

$500-$1,000 15 

$1,001-$2,500 17 

$2,501-$5,000 15 

More than $5,000 5 

Nothing more 18 

Don’t know 23 

Total 100 

Mean1 (including none) $2,143 

Mean1 (excluding none) $2,799 

Source: ORC for NREL (2001b), Study No. 710449, N=180 

1 In this report, calculation of means, medians, and standard deviations are based on raw numbers. “Don’t 

know” responses are not part of the calculations. 

12 
Q4.2.3: Suppose you have decided to buy a new vehicle and have a choice of an optional engine 

 that requires a new fuel that costs the same as gasoline and is just as good as gasoline. 

Version A: The optional engine costs the same as the conventional one but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 10 stations. 

Which would you most likely buy? 

Version B: The optional engine costs the same as the conventional one but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 5 stations. 

Which would you most likely buy? 

Version C: The optional engine costs the same as the conventional one but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 3 stations. 

Which would you most likely buy? 

Table 4.2.3. Public Preference Toward Purchasing a More Fuel-Efficient Engine with 

Different Fuel-Availability Options (2000) 

Fuel-Availability Options 

Conventional 

Engine 

(percent) 

Optional 

Engine 

(percent) 

Don’t 

Know/Refused 

(percent) 

A 

The optional engine costs the same as 

the conventional one, but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the 

fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 10 

stations. 

66 30 4 

B 

The optional engine costs the same as 

the conventional one, but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the 

fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 5 

stations. 

62 36 3 

C 

The optional engine costs the same as 

the conventional one, but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the 

fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 3 

stations. 

43 53 4 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000d), Study No. 70920, N=111 

13 
4.3 VEHICLE OWNERS’ DECISIONS ABOUT ADVANCED-TECHNOLOGY 

VEHICLES 

Hybrid-Electric Vehicles 

Q4.3.1: There are some cars in the U.S. market today that have advanced hybrid-electric 

power trains that combine a small electric motor and a small gasoline engine to 

achieve a higher fuel economy than similar cars. How much have you heard about 

this technology: a great deal, some, very little, or nothing? 

Table 4.3.1. Amount of Information Heard Pertaining to 

Advanced Hybrid-Electric Power Trains (2000-02) 

Percent 

August 2000 November 2001 November 2002 

A Great Deal 13 10 20 

Some 33 33 35 

Very Little 34 30 26 

Nothing 20 26 18 

Don’t Know 0 2 1 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000) N=953, (2001) N=999, (2002c) N=999 

Q4.3.2: Please name one of these hybrid-electric cars if you can. 

Table 4.3.2. Names of Advanced Hybrid-Electric Vehicles 

Known by the Public (selected years, 2000-04) 

Percent 

August 2000 November 2001 November 2002 May 2004 

Any vehicle 36 44 51 48 

Honda 15 24 24 17 

Toyota 4 11 10 9 

Ford NA NA NA 6 

Other 14 6 7 4 

Don’t Know 64 56 48 52 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000) N=953, (2001) N=999, (2002c) N=999, (2000a) N=1,000, (2004a) 

N=1,000 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

14
A 2003 survey of in-market consumers by Kelley Blue Book examined the influence of the 

media on attitudes toward SUVs. Although no hybrid-electric SUVs were available in the United 

States at the time of this survey (mid-2003), shoppers would think favorably of such an option 

and might be more likely to consider the purchase of an SUV. 

Table 4.3.3 Public’s Attitudes Toward Hybrid-Electric SUVs (2003) 

Percent 

SUV Considerers SUV 

Non-Considerers Total 

Jan 2003 Mar 2003 Jan 2003 Mar 2003 Jan 2003 Mar 2003 

More favorable 

toward SUVs 52 46 45 44 48 45 

Neutral 40 46 44 51 42 49 

Less favorable 

toward SUVs 8 7 11 5 10 6 

Source: Kelley Blue Book (2003), N=524 

15 
Diesel Vehicles 

Q4.3.4: Would you consider buying a diesel engine version that got 40% better fuel economy 

and costs an additional $1,500? 

Table 4.3.4.1 Public’s Willingness to Consider the Purchase of a Diesel Engine With a 

40 Percent Increase in Fuel Economy and Additional Costs of $1,500 (1997) 

Considerations of Diesel-Engine Options Percent 

Would not consider buying a diesel engine version that got 40% better 

fuel economy and costs an additional $1,500. 75 

Would consider buying a diesel-engine version that got 40% better 

fuel economy and costs an additional $1,500. 21 

Don’t know 4 

Total 100 

Source: ORC for NREL (1997), Study No. 70627, N=1,010 

Table 4.3.4.2 Public’s Willingness to Pay a Premium for a Clean Diesel Engine (2002) 

Premium Willing to Pay 

For Clean Diesel 

Percent 

Total Current Diesel 

Owner 

Current Gas 

Owner 

$0 33 10 34 

$1-$199 8 4 8 

$200-$399 7 1 7 

$400-$599 16 8 17 

$600-$999 4 3 4 

$1,000-$1,499 14 17 14 

$1,500-$1,999 4 5 4 

More than $2,000 14 51 12

 Source: J.D. Power and Associates (2002), N-not available 

16 
Q4.3.5: Assume that a new vehicle you want to buy has two engine options that are equally 

clean, dependable, powerful, odorless, and smooth running. One uses gasoline and the 

other uses diesel fuel and gets 40% more miles per gallon but costs $2,000 more. 

Which engine option would you buy? 

Table 4.3.5. Purchase Preference Between Diesel and Gasoline Vehicles

 by Vehicle Type (2001) 

Vehicles 

Percent 

Total 

Vehicle Type Don’t 

Know 

Which 

Type of 

Vehicle 

to Buy 

Small Car Large 

Car Minivan SUV Pickup/ Van 

Gasoline 71 75 81 71 62 65 60 

Diesel 27 21 18 27 37 34 28 

Don’t know 2 4 1 2 1 1 12 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Source: ORC for NREL (2001c), Study No. 710288, N=989 

If chose diesel, ask: 

Q4.3.6: Why did you choose the diesel option? 

Table 4.3.6. Reasons for Choosing a Diesel Option (2001) 

Reasons Percent 

Fuel economy (better gas mileage/fuel economy, 40% better mileage/miles 

per gallon) 46 

Cost (saves money/pays for itself over time, cheaper than gasoline, 

economical) 34 

Dependability (diesel engine lasts longer, more reliable/dependable) 12 

Environmental (burns cleaner, other related mentions) 10 

I have/drive vehicle with diesel engine 4 

More power/horsepower 3 

Previous positive experience/ satisfied with diesel 3 

Other /don’t know 10 

Source: ORC for NREL (2001c), Study No. 710288, N=266 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

17 
If did not choose diesel, ask: 

Q4.3.7: Why did you reject the diesel option? 

Table 4.3.7. Reasons for Rejecting a Diesel Option (2001) 

Reasons Percent 

Environmental (pollutes the air, odor/smell/stink, too much noise, other 

related mentions) 39 

Cost (expense, initial cost/$2,000 more, other related mentions ) 19 

Lack of fuel availability 17 

Don’t know enough/know nothing about it/never owned one 11 

Engine problems (difficult to start in winter, other related mentions) 8 

Just don’t like diesel/husband doesn’t like diesel 7 

Prefer/used to/satisfied with gasoline 5 

Negative experience 4 

Difficult to maintain/repair 3 

Other 4 

Don’t know 4

 Source: ORC for NREL (2001c), Study No. 710288, N=723 

General Preferences 

Q4.3.8: Which one of the following are you planning to purchase for your next household 

vehicle? 

Table 4.3.8. Vehicle-Purchase Preferences (2004) 

Type of Vehicle Percent 

Large car, same size or larger than a Honda Accord, Chevy Malibu, or 

Toyota Camry 28 

SUV or sport utility vehicle 23 

Small car, smaller than a Honda Accord, Chevy Malibu, or Toyota Camry 20 

Pickup truck or large van 18 

Minivan 6 

Other/ don’t know 4 

Total 99 

Source: ORC for NREL (2004a), Study No. 713218, N=1,000 

18 
Q4.3.9: When you purchase your next household vehicle, how likely are you to buy each of 

the following? 

Would you say you definitely will buy it, you would be very likely to buy it, you 

would be likely to buy it, you would be likely to buy it, you would be not likely to 

buy it or you definitely won’t buy it? 

Table 4.3.9. Vehicle-Purchase Preferences – Diesel vs. Hybrid-electric (2004) 

Type of Vehicle 

Percent 

Hybridelectric Diesel 

Definitely will buy 7 4 

Very likely to buy 8 4 

Likely to buy 27 14 

Not likely to buy 31 36 

Definitely won’t buy 20 38 

Don’t know 6 3 

Total 99 99 

Source: ORC for NREL (2004a), Study No. 713218, N=1,000 

Q4.3.10: Suppose you were given an extra $1,000 that you must spend on acceleration, fuel 

economy and/or the ability to tow, when buying your next vehicle. How much would 

you spend on each attribute? You can spend all the money on one attribute or split it 

among two or three attributes. 

Table 4.3.10. Priority on Vehicle Attributes (2004) 

Attribute Dollars 

Fuel economy $609 

Acceleration $248 

Ability to tow $143 

Total $1,000 

Source: ORC for NREL (2004a), Study No. 713218, N=1,000 

19 
5. TRAFFIC ISSUES 

With more vehicles on the roads and each vehicle traveling more miles each year, it is not 

surprising that traffic congestion is becoming a problem in many locations throughout the 

country. A study by the Texas Transportation Institute reported that the average American 

spends 36 hours per year stuck in traffic. These survey questions look at various traffic issues 

and the public’s responses to dealing with them. 

Q5.1: What part of driving do you find most irritating? (open-ended) 

Table 5.1. Public Ranking of the Most Irritating Part of Driving (2002) 

Most Irritating Part of Driving Percent 

Traffic congestion 40 

Other drivers 31 

Cost 12 

Road conditions 10 

Other/ don’t know 7 

Total 100 

Source: ORC (2002), N=1,005 

Travelers who reported trip delays were asked to name the main reason for the delays. 

Table 5.2. Most Important Reasons for Travel Delays (2000) 

Reason for Trip Delay Percent 

Heavy traffic 53 

Roadwork 26 

Accidents 10 

Traffic signals 10 

Source: FHWA Operations and Planning/Environment Survey (2000) 

Q5.3: Which of the following best describes your view of the traffic you encounter in your 

area every day? 

Table 5.3. Public’s View of Daily Traffic (2000) 

Best Describes Daily Traffic Percent 

Not a significant problem 48 

Minor inconvenience and problem 31 

Major inconvenience and problem 19 

No opinion 2 

Source: Gallup (2000), N=601 

20 
Q5.4: Looking ahead, do you anticipate that the traffic in your area today will get much 

better, somewhat better, stay the same, get somewhat worse, or get much worse 

during the next five years? 

Table 5.4. Public’s View of Future Traffic (2000) 

Best Describes Future Traffic Percent 

Get much better 5 

Get somewhat better 10 

Stay the same 23 

Get somewhat worse 33 

Get much worse 28 

No opinion 1 

Source: Gallup (2000), N=601 

Q5.5: Have you had to change your life or schedule in any way because of traffic in recent 

years? In what ways? 

Table 5.5.1 Have Changed Schedule Because of Traffic (2000) 

Percent 

Yes 31 

No 69 

Source: Gallup (2000), N=601 

Table 5.5.2 Ways Public has Changed Because of Traffic (2000) 

Changes Because of Traffic Percent 

Leave earlier 36 

Take alternate routes 18 

Allow more time for travel 13 

Avoid driving at certain times 12 

Don’t drive as much 7 

Changed working hours 6 

Moved 5 

Use mass transit or carpool 3 

Work at home/ telecommute 1 

Source: Gallup (2000), N=601 

21 
Q5.6: How often do you get stuck driving in traffic jams?

Table 5.6. Frequency of Getting Stuck in Traffic Jams (2000) 

Frequency of Traffic Jams Percent 

Every day 11 

Several times a week 14 

Several times a month 22 

A few times a year 31 

Never 20 

Source: Gallup (2000), N=318 

Q5.7: As opposed to other means of transportation, please tell me the main reason you used 

public transit last month? 

Table 5.7. Reasons for Using Public Transit (2003) 

Reason for Using Public Transit Percent 

More convenient than other means of 

transportation 44 

Have no vehicle available 30 

Cheaper/costs less/saves money/expensive 

parking 15 

Faster than other means of transportation 4 

Away from home on business or pleasure travel 3 

Parking not available 2 

Less impact on the environment than other 

means of transportation 1 

Other 1 

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2003), N-not available 

22
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 

April 2005 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Consumer Views on Transportation and Energy (Second Edition) 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Compiled by Michelle Kubik 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

 NREL/TP-620-36785 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

ASA5.1315 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

NREL/TP-620-36785 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

NREL 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) 

This report has been assembled to provide the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) with an idea 

of how the American public views various transportation, energy, and environmental issues. The data presented in this 

report have been drawn from multiple sources: surveys conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) for the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) that are commissioned and funded by EERE, Gallup polls, and other 

sources. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

analysis; transportation; consumers; gasoline; fuel; foreign oil dependence; sport utility vehicles; SUVs; fuel-efficiency 

vehicles; travel; traffic; ethanol; hybrid-electric vehicles; advanced-technology vehicles; greenhouse gas emissions; 

Elyse Steiner; Philip Patterson; Michelle Kubik; Transportation Energy Survey Data Book 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 

F1147-E(12/2004)